Anon.
Guest
|
Authored by Anon. on Aug 27, 2013 19:12:10 GMT
Just wondering if anyone is checking the dockets in the various cases?
|
|
|
Authored by bytejuggler on Aug 29, 2013 15:29:18 GMT
Yes. Part of getting this site going will be the keeping tabs on the cases and having someone post articles on developments. Otherwise, this will just be so much talk and no substance. It worries me that no-one's responded to this post yet. (Pondering whether I need to register on Pacer perhaps...)
|
|
|
Authored by ukjayb on Aug 29, 2013 17:03:01 GMT
I registered with Pacer last week, but my info hasn't come in the mail yet.
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Aug 29, 2013 17:51:22 GMT
I stopped by the Utah Federal Court yesterday, and saw that there's a new docket item up in SCO v. IBM - which is just a stipulated order granting an extension of time for SCO to reply to IBM's response, mirroring the previous stipulated extension for IBM's filing. The extension is until the 29th, which is today. So we're expecting to see SCO's statement of why the Novell judgement doesn't crimp their claims, or enable IBM's counterclaims, to the extent that IBM insists.
|
|
Anon.
Guest
|
Authored by Anon. on Aug 31, 2013 0:16:12 GMT
I think that as a first step, someone should post the dockets here, for the benefit of those who do not have access to Pacer, so that we can keep following the events.
|
|